https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/12071307/twelve-f1-drivers-receive-warnings-over-tuscan-gp-restart-crash
The last comment implies that there may be more to come.
Cheers
Geoff
The last comment implies that there may be more to come.
Which comment? The decision read as pretty final to me.
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/12071307/twelve-f1-drivers-receive-warnings-over-tuscan-gp-restart-crash
The last comment implies that there may be more to come.
Bottas may have followed the letter of the law, but what he did was far from normal on a SC restart.
Bottas may have followed the letter of the law, but what he did was far from normal on a SC restart.
On 14/09/2020 10:49 am, XYXPDQ wrote:
Bottas may have followed the letter of the law, but what he did was
far from normal on a SC restart.
Except it already happened four times the same weekend at the same track
in F2 and F3. It's a track-specific safety car start and the drivers who fucked up should be sent back to F3 to start again IMO.
On 14/09/2020 10:49 am, XYXPDQ wrote:
Bottas may have followed the letter of the law, but what he did was
far from normal on a SC restart.
Except it already happened four times the same weekend at the same
track in F2 and F3. It's a track-specific safety car start...
~misfit~ wrote:
On 14/09/2020 10:49 am, XYXPDQ wrote:
Bottas may have followed the letter of the law, but what he did was
far from normal on a SC restart.
Except it already happened four times the same weekend at the same
track in F2 and F3. It's a track-specific safety car start...
Yup, there is so much to gain by getting a run in such a situation that without very specific rules to avoid it the risk of this was very high.
They could have easily specified a rule change for safety reasons that
would have avoided this. A reversion to the previous rule would have sufficed. Turn 1 would still have been a challenge but the potential
speed differences would have been far less.
Most of the reprimanded drivers had no definite way of knowing whether
the race was back on or not.
--
Bozo bin
Texasgate
Heron
Enjoy!
On Monday, 14 September 2020 at 09:46:58 UTC+1, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 14/09/2020 10:49 am, XYXPDQ wrote:
Bottas may have followed the letter of the law, but what he did
was far from normal on a SC restart.
Except it already happened four times the same weekend at the same
track in F2 and F3. It's a track-specific safety car start...
Yup, there is so much to gain by getting a run in such a situation
that without very specific rules to avoid it the risk of this was
very high.
They could have easily specified a rule change for safety reasons
that would have avoided this. A reversion to the previous rule
would have sufficed. Turn 1 would still have been a challenge but
the potential speed differences would have been far less.
Most of the reprimanded drivers had no definite way of knowing
whether the race was back on or not.
--
Bozo bin
Texasgate
Heron
Enjoy!
What reversion to the rules? Wasn't it just the positioning of the
SC line that was "unusual" for a circuit? Or have I missed some
other fundamental rule change (beyond the shuffling of the lapped
cars back into position?
larkim wrote:
On Monday, 14 September 2020 at 09:46:58 UTC+1, Bigbird wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 14/09/2020 10:49 am, XYXPDQ wrote:
Bottas may have followed the letter of the law, but what he did
was far from normal on a SC restart.
Aha, thanks! I was missing that piece of info.Except it already happened four times the same weekend at the same track in F2 and F3. It's a track-specific safety car start...
Yup, there is so much to gain by getting a run in such a situation
that without very specific rules to avoid it the risk of this was
very high.
They could have easily specified a rule change for safety reasons
that would have avoided this. A reversion to the previous rule
would have sufficed. Turn 1 would still have been a challenge but
the potential speed differences would have been far less.
Most of the reprimanded drivers had no definite way of knowing
whether the race was back on or not.
--
Bozo bin
Texasgate
Heron
Enjoy!
What reversion to the rules? Wasn't it just the positioning of theIn 2019 they reverted to using the "control line" as the place earliest overtaking place. For a number of years it had been the first SC line
SC line that was "unusual" for a circuit? Or have I missed some
other fundamental rule change (beyond the shuffling of the lapped
cars back into position?
at the pit entrance.
--
Bozo bin
Texasgate
Heron
Enjoy!
On Monday, 14 September 2020 at 13:20:08 UTC+1, Bigbird wrote:
larkim wrote:Aha, thanks! I was missing that piece of info.
On Monday, 14 September 2020 at 09:46:58 UTC+1, Bigbird wrote:In 2019 they reverted to using the "control line" as the place earliest
~misfit~ wrote:
On 14/09/2020 10:49 am, XYXPDQ wrote:
Bottas may have followed the letter of the law, but what he did
was far from normal on a SC restart.
Except it already happened four times the same weekend at the same
track in F2 and F3. It's a track-specific safety car start...
Yup, there is so much to gain by getting a run in such a situation
that without very specific rules to avoid it the risk of this was
very high.
They could have easily specified a rule change for safety reasons
that would have avoided this. A reversion to the previous rule
would have sufficed. Turn 1 would still have been a challenge but
the potential speed differences would have been far less.
Most of the reprimanded drivers had no definite way of knowing
whether the race was back on or not.
--
Bozo bin
Texasgate
Heron
Enjoy!
What reversion to the rules? Wasn't it just the positioning of the
SC line that was "unusual" for a circuit? Or have I missed some
other fundamental rule change (beyond the shuffling of the lapped
cars back into position?
overtaking place. For a number of years it had been the first SC line
at the pit entrance.
--
Bozo bin
Texasgate
Heron
Enjoy!
Ironic that the move to improve the safety through the SC deployment caused more safety issues.
Would a VSC not have worked better?
Geoff May wrote:
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/12071307/twelve-f1-drivers-receive-warnings-over-tuscan-gp-restart-crash
The last comment implies that there may be more to come.
Which comment? The decision read as pretty final to me.
On 14/09/2020 10:49 am, XYXPDQ wrote:
Bottas may have followed the letter of the law, but what he did was far from normal on a SC restart.
Except it already happened four times the same weekend at the same track in F2 and F3. It's a
track-specific safety car start and the drivers who fucked up should be sent back to F3 to start
again IMO.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/12071307/twelve-f1-drivers-receive-warnings-over-tuscan-gp-restart-crash
The last comment implies that there may be more to come.
Geoff May <GeoffMay_do_not_spam_me@nospam.com> wrote:
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/12071307/twelve-f1-drivers-receive-warnings-over-tuscan-gp-restart-crashThe stewards should realize that they are not dealing with rational human beings, they are dealing with racing drivers Efye
The last comment implies that there may be more to come.
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 47:30:30 |
| Calls: | 132 |
| Files: | 708 |
| Messages: | 83,512 |